These evolutionists operate in the 21st century like the Roman Catholic Church did in medieval Europe. I believe if they had the power to conduct formal inquisitions upon the populace to force recantations of non-evolutionary scientific dissent they would take up that “cross” with exactly the same fervor. As it is they are limited to censuring, persecuting, and ruining the careers of your own peers who find a scientific basis to question speciation theory.

It’s maddening and unacceptable in a free modern society to see this situation but it exists because of people like the author of this article.

http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2009/01/bryan-appleyard-and-creationism.html

The article quotes appovingly from creationists, and reprises the familiar creationist arguments that evolution cannot explain the eye, that there aren’t enough genes to explain human complexity, and evolution caused Nazi eugenics and other social ills.

Sure, How about if the moon is made of green cheese?
For more see Secular Right.

You mean that bias against crackpot ideas is a bad thing?

Your post is as biased as mine is.

Vera

I cannot show, but I can tell you the way they went about it to ‘see it’. Last time, we engaged on this, I suggested you take 10 days to attend a free meditation course. That will be the tip of the ice berg to the viewing. It is said the likes of the historical Gautama Buddha saw it through such approach. I have not walked the full path so I have to go with the “three strikes IF” but I would support the preservation of such ancient pathway for humanity. By the way it has nothing to do with miracles. It is direct perception of reality, versus conventional reality (realities of the world. Seeing is by the analytical mind, OR the intuitive mind. Discursive thought is use of the former and meditation is use of the latter. To use the latter, one has to for that period temporarily cease use of the analytical mind. I cannot show you that which only your intuitive mind can see for itself (subject to your three strikes IF disclaimer) when in use by yourself.

me: “I just found out this year and last year there are some particles that pop out and are seen and then disappear and are not seen.”

you: :”Yeah, yeah, I had that happening to me too when I was drunk…”

me: That actually was a science observation, if you care to check it out seriously. I have not used the science words as I have forgotten them.

I think atheism is a belief.

Are you also “thinking” that your thinking is an argument?
LOL

I just found out this year and last year there are some particles that pop out and are seen and then disappear and are not seen.

Yeah, yeah, I had that happening to me too when I was drunk…

Further if some ancient thinkers think the world is an illusion, and retreat into religion, and pursue a path of meditation to penetrate the illusion, and see the real reality, then if they did succeed, and if they did see real reality, then what is our reality we see?

if, if, if, three strikes and you’re out!
“our reality we see” is the one EVERYBODY sees (when not drunk or otherwise deranged) and this is the main property of “this” reality, that it can be shared and agreed upon.
NONE of the so-called separate or different realities allows that, thus they are much more probably schizophrenic fantasies since they are NOT able to interact with everyday reality either.
There are NO RELIABLY WITNESSED MIRACLES and where there have seem to be some they were later debunked as natural phenomenon or fabrications (ever heard of James Randi?)

So your belief that the realities of the world is the only and sole reality is then a belief just as there belief that there are two realities.

I am not at all “believing” in a sole and only reality but I have never seen any other.
Show me some other and I will “believe”.
Like evidence that baptizing the dead has any effect other than upsetting another group of morons.

Yes after I had punched the hit button, I realised you hid one link under one word, and there being two words, there were two links.
I like to be excused from such extensive reading. I like to re read my star book and make notes like page 36- Copernicus liked the stars in the skies and he studied at the good universities of his time and became prof in 1499. After teaching earth was center of the universe for a few years, he realised it was wrong and resigned and became a priest and studied more for 30 years and then published his work that earth was not, and a few days later he died. What started him on the new track, was reading the work of ancient Greek scientists like Pythagoras. He also devised a new money system for his government. He found out the exact length of the year short of less than a minute.

I think atheism is a belief. I just found out this year and last year there are some particles that pop out and are seen and then disappear and are not seen. It is as if they have moved through the sliding door to another world another reality another dimension. So there are things in front of our eyes and then not in front of our eyes. Further if some ancient thinkers think the world is an illusion, and retreat into religion, and pursue a path of meditation to penetrate the illusion, and see the real reality, then if they did succeed, and if they did see real reality, then what is our reality we see? Two realities, real realities and realities of the world. So your belief that the realities of the world is the only and sole reality is then a belief just as there belief that there are two realities.

Well I am not a scientist and do not have the time to check with various scientists and then figure it out. Just 2 days ago, I bought a second hand book “The Real Book about STARS” by Hal Goodwin illustrated by Paul Wenck, a clear simple introduction to the skies with many illustrations and charts. 1951 Garden City Books. I read the 170 pages and marked in many places in the book. For example, at page 29- I drew in the margin, the Empire State Building and on top right side, placed a dot, and I gathered that our galaxy is the building and the ant/dot, is our solar system. This way I can put it in my head an image of what difference in size the solar system is to our galaxy, within which our solar system is situated. This book is a book club probably for junior high school boys but they suffice for me. Its 1951 and much would have been known and the book could be obselete, but I learnt when Jupiter was discovered and how and which came next. That gives me mental pleasure. I am no where near the intellectual brilliance of Kevembuangga nor the commitment to scientific excellence of andyo, nor the single mindedness of Mike Schuler to reason God’s existence in life through science and thus secure a framework for life and reason for living and purpose of his existence.

If as I know the Jesuit scientists will give me a scientific answer, and since the questions stem from issues related to God, I know they will favor me with a reply. They may also be keen to have the opportunity to have this question sorted out, even if not astrophysics, because of their commitment to discipline of science as well as to God. I like them, and is it not human, and ordinary when we have questions, we ask our friends, even if others think they are not experts, because we trust them.

How much information do we need, that is necessary? We cherry pick. I enjoyed learning that Saturn (named after Greek god, is father of Jupiter). At the top of page 95, I wrote down Saturn (Father) / Cronos = Time —> Jupiter / Jove/ Zeus .

Sure, I could have written back to the Prof and mentioned that, if the 2 pairs of chromosomes of our common ancestor of man and ape, fused and became one pair, so that, we have man, born of the common ancestor parents, with 23 pairs, and if this event occurred once, we have either a male or female offspring, with 23 pairs, and for this progeny to reproduce, it needs another mate with 23 pairs ( presumably) so as to create a line of descendants. On the other hand, it might be that such occurrences of common ancestors mating and reproducing off springs with 23 pairs had become a common feature, so that there are plenty of 23 pairs male and females so that they can freely mate and reproduce the tree of man with 23 pairs. Out of concern for the sensitivity of the question posed, and the way they have chosen to refer to a scientist in the field, I just wrote back a nice thank you and I have learnt a lot. I am sure they would behind doors, discuss this and see how they bring this across to the flock through the proper channels. That is their task. We have just given them a head start. They in the know would like such reform, for then hinges survival in the long term. But for me, suffice to read and remember a bit that Jupiter is coated with ice and colder than ice. 200 degrees below zero. Then I pause is this celcius or fahrenheit.

So I am not in the big league in pursuit of science. Thus I am happy to accept the Jesuits confirmation of the answer than accept your link, andyo. Maybe if I had pursued a science career when young I might think differently.

I know it sounds bad as you rightly pointed out to me, hoping I would improve, “What bothers me is that you’re not only going to religious “authority” for your science information. What bothers me further is that you are also going to these religious “authorities” to confirm or reject information coming from scientists.” # I appreciate your urging me to excellence, andyo, but this brain does not want to run marathon nor need to. It likes movies of stars in skies, and an ant perched on Empire State Building.

Not ruling out the possibility of a creator, especially when there is utterly no logical reason to rule it out

Yes there is: zero plausibility, let’s otherwise check for the “existence” of the tooth fairy, or if the hidden side of the moon is made of green cheese, why not?
And how does this statement of yours squares with your previous one: I have never mentioned religion other than to say that I don’t believe in it?
It also seem that you failed to grasp my previous criticism that the existence of a God isn’t an “explanation” for anything: where does God came from then?

it’s pretty difficult to try to claim that the first chromosome came into existence through random chance.

Another thing you failed to grasp (and probably didn’t even try to understand), I provided a detailed explanation of complexity buildup by iterated function systems without any plan or purpose and provided relevant links.

The only reason you refuse to question Darwin

Actually I don’t give a shit about Darwin, he provides only a tiny piece of the puzzle and he is obsolete with respect to recent developments of biology.
Anyway I don’t need Darwin to reject schizophrenic mythologies.

prime examples of how false beliefs … Your belief in atheism … you don’t even recognize that atheism is a belief … your own religious beliefs in atheism, etc….

Atheism isn’t a belief, it’s an absence of belief in anything but everyday evidence that there are “various things” out there in front of our eyes, nothing more.
And then you wonder that I call you a numbskull?

Not ruling out the possibility of a creator, especially when there is utterly no logical reason to rule it out, is not the same thing as throwing your hands up and giving up the search for the truth. It also has absolutely nothing to do with, in any way, shape, or form, religion or religious beliefs.

Your last two posts are prime examples of how false beliefs distort the perceptions. Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s belief in a stationary Earth caused them to believe in things that are easily disproved. Your belief in atheism does the same thing. Your false belief distorts your reality so badly that you don’t even recognize that atheism is a belief, and you will attempt to argue the opposite.

Darwin didn’t know about chromosomes. The only thing that can create chromosomes are chromosomes. Now that we can map the actual numeric code on the gene sequences, it’s pretty difficult to try to claim that the first chromosome came into existence through random chance. So instead of searching all directions for a solution, the atheist/Darwinist has to make up an utterly unbelievable story about life originally not having chromosomes, and that chromosomes evolved. Even if it was possible for there to be life capable of reproducing without chromosomes, how did that first cell begin? Next you’ll say that the first life didn’t have a cell, and that cells evolved.

The fossil record has completely failed to show any transitional forms or small gradual changes over a long period of time. The atheist/Darwinist has to cover this by patching together the idea of “punctuated equilibrium” which seems to say that Darwin doesn’t exactly work.

Not having the “perfect” explanation at hand does not mean that you have to stick to beliefs that just couldn’t possibly be true. The only reason you refuse to question Darwin is because it would violate your own religious beliefs in atheism.

They are not “answers” as you claim. etc, etc…

This is the same silly argument for every point about “scientific” proofs for ID or God’s hand:
“We are too stupid to figure out how it can be therefore God is at work”
We know that you are too stupid, nothing new here, not having the “perfect” explanation at hand doesn’t mean that there could not be one.
For a paleolithic or even medieval man a mobile phone would be God’s work too or may be the Devil’s?

There have been some new discoveries since the time of Darwin. How does Darwin do away with the problem that apes have 24 chromosome pairs and humans only have 23? According to Darwin, apes and humans have a common ancestor. Presumably, this ancestor had 24 chromosome pairs. Darwin couldn’t look at chromosomes, but we can, and we find that the ape’s 9th and 14th chromosome pairs, if joined together and reversed like a palindrome, look just like the human 12th chromosome.
So here we have evidence of one species begatting another. Darwin says that genetic mutations are random, with detrimental ones dying off and beneficial mutations being passed along.

My argument is that this beneficial fusion of two chromosomes into one would have to occur twice at the same time, in two separate offspring, one male and one female, and that these two offspring would have to form a mating pair, and be the individual first members of a new species line running the new chromosome configuration.

Andyo’s argument is that the actual deformation of the chromosome need only happen once, and then will eventually spread through succeeding generations until it meets up with itself and begins the new species from multiple points of origination. I find this argument flawed because in every case where there is chromosome malformation in only one side of the pair, there is always a devastating if not fatal syndrome of some sort accompanying it. That is what we observe. We have never observed a new species arising from another over a long, slow, gradual period of time. From PZ Meyers:

Let’s clear up a few irrelevant misconceptions first. Life probably started with no chromosomes — early replicators would have been grab bags of metabolites, proteins, and RNA that would have simply sloppily split in two, with no real sorting. DNA and chromosomes evolved as accounting and archiving tools…

Life probably started with no chromosomes? That is one incredible leap of faith that I just can’t make. The oldest fossils of living things are 3 billion year old blue-green algae. Blue-green algae is still around today, and it has chromosomes. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind that shows that life could be possible without chromosomes. Meyers call this an “irrelevant misconception?” The idea that life requires chromosomes is a misconception? I don’t think so. The true fact of the matter is, chromosomes are so essential to life, that life just could not possibly begin or exist without them.

The Darwinian evolutionist (i.e. atheist) has to make this ‘leap of faith’ and many others in order to maintain the illusion that life could spontaneously begin and develop into the vast diversity that we see today, all guided by nothing other than blind random, accidental chance. I find that a lot harder to believe than simply not ruling out as a scientific principle, the idea that the Universe was created for the purpose of supporting life. There is no evidence that rules out the possibility, but what we now know about chromosomes essentially disproves the Darwinian theory as to the full cause for how life originated.

Arbitrarily ruling out the possibility that the Universe is a creation, is exactly the same as arbitrarily ruling out the possibility that the Earth is not a stationary object. When Aristotle and Ptolemy ruled out the possibility of a moving Earth, they blinded mankind and mainstream science for over 1,800 years. When you stubbornly refuse to look at the obvious evidence against Darwin, you are doing the same thing as Tycho Brahe when he tried to prove Ptolemy correct in the face of observable evidence in support of the Heliocentric model.

Arguments making claims such that a creator is unnecessary all require enormous leaps of faith. The theory of infinite parallel universes to explain life still has the same problem as a one universe reality. How did this Universe begin? How did the infinite number of parallel universes begin? I have to mention here, that there is absolutely no evidence of any parallel universes, and belief is such would be more absurd than not ruling out the possibility of a creator when there is observable evidence to suggest that we might be a creation.